list_asset_wishlist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that items are 'discovered by Game Scan,' which hints at data provenance, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it triggers a scan, how results are ordered, or any pagination or side-effect behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity leaves important gaps unaddressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned. However, it leaves the project parameter unexplained and offers no usage or behavioral context, so it is only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single 'project' parameter, its default value, or what it represents. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows a string property with a default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (List) and resource (prioritized missing assets, placeholders, and TODO art items) with a clear scope (discovered by Game Scan). It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_assets or find_placeholders, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tools to prefer. An agent could infer it is relevant after a Game Scan, but no such instruction is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.